People v. Jandreau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jandreau

286 A.D.2d 990, 730 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9069

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 990 (People v. Jandreau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Jandreau, 286 A.D.2d 990, 730 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of five counts each of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). The plea allocution does not cast significant doubt upon defendant’s guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea and thus this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666; People v Sennett, 280 AD2d 998, lv denied 96 NY2d 787). (Appeal from Judgment of [991]*991Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of five counts each of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). The plea allocution does not cast significant doubt upon defendant’s guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea and thus this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666; People v Sennett, 280 AD2d 998, lv denied 96 NY2d 787). (Appeal from Judgment of [991]*991Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 990, 730 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jandreau-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack